Considering Religious Freedom Restoration Act Sound Bites
What is the logic of the courts on this type of question
so far?
Indiana Court of Appeals denied a state police officer’s
request to be exempt from working on a riverboat because of his religious
objections to gambling.
Why?
Two reasons. First,
religious liberty, while important, is not absolute. It must be weighed against other rights. Second, “Firefighters
must extinguish all fires, even those in places of worship that the firefighter
regards as heretical. Just so with
police.”
The US Supreme Court found
unanimously that the Arkansas Department of Corrections must accommodate a
prisoner’s religiously-based exemption to the no-beard policy.
Why?
“The unanimity turned on the fact
that no third parties were required to
bear the cost of the requested accommodation.”
The US Supreme Court said employers cannot be required to accommodate
employee religiously-based requests for days off.
Why?
“The First Amendment…gives no one the right to insist that,
in pursuit of their own interests others must conform their conduct to his one
religious necessities.” That is the “Constitution
allows for special exemptions for religious actors, but not when they work to
impose costs on others.”
US Supreme Court denied a request
by an Amish employer seeking to not pay Social Security taxes on behalf of his
employees.
Why?
“When the followers of a particular
sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they
accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be
superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that
activity.”
Governing Logic/Constitutional Principle: Religious liberty cannot be protected by
shifting a burden to third parties.
Indiana RFRA Likely Violates State and Federal
Constitutions
RFRA violates this principle by granting religious liberty
special status, putting it above “parallel compelling state interests such as public
health and safety, equality, and other fundamental liberties.”
No language in RFRA prohibiting the shifting of costs to
third parties, thus violating “Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana
Constitution, a provision that prohibits the law from preferring religious over
non-religious policies and practices.”
RFRA creates a legal way to shift costs…violates US Constitution,
Establishment Clause…government endorsement of religion.
Does State RFRA Mirror 1993 Federal RFRA?
Not unambiguously. Many
who voted for the law no retract on the basis of disagreements about how it has
been applied, including treating corporations as individuals with religious
liberty.
No. Federal and most
other state RFRAs “provide that in order to pass constitutional muster the
alleged burden…must be ‘in furtherance of a compelling government interest.’” Whereas the Indiana RFRA says it must be ‘essential
to further….’ This raises the standard,
making it more difficult to justify a burden, thus easier to claim religious
exemptions…particularly to claim religious exemptions as a defense against
charges of discrimination.
No. The definition of
‘person’ in the Indiana RFRA “differs substantially” from the definition in the
Federal statute.
Is Indiana RFRA ‘hardly radical’?
Broad language invites confusion and litigation, encouraging
landlords and corporations to break the law on the assumption that they have a
religious justification…and “the public will then be asked to bear the cost of
their employer’s, their landlord’s, their local shopkeeper’s, or police officer’s
private religious beliefs.”
No comments:
Post a Comment